Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report

E/C.19/2005/CRP.4 20 April 2005 English only Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Fourth session New York, 16-27 May 2005 Agenda item of the provisional agenda Special Theme Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report Final version – to be copy edited A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment www.MAweb.org Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Panel Harold A Mooney (co-chair), Stanford University, United States Angela Cropper (co-chair), Cropper Foundation, Trinidad and Tobago Doris Capistrano, Center for International Forestry Research, Indonesia Stephen R Carpenter, University of Wisconsin, United States Kanchan Chopra, Institute of Economic Growth, India Partha Dasgupta, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom Rik Leemans, Wageningen University, Netherlands Robert M May, University of Oxford, United Kingdom Prabhu Pingali, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy Rashid Hassan, University of Pretoria, South Africa Cristián Samper, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, United States Robert Scholes, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, South Africa Robert T Watson, World Bank, United States (ex officio) A H Zakri, United Nations University, Japan (ex officio) Zhao Shidong, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China Editorial Board Chairs: José Sarukhán, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico Anne Whyte, Mestor Associates Ltd., Canada MA Director Walter V Reid, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Malaysia and United States Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board The MA Board represents the users of the findings of the MA process Co-chairs Robert T Watson, World Bank A.H Zakri, United Nations University Institutional Representatives Salvatore Arico, Division of Ecological Science, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Peter Bridgewater, Secretary General, Ramsar Convention on Wetlands Hama Arba Diallo, Executive Secretary, United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification Adel El-Beltagy, Director General, International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Max Finlayson, Chair, Scientific and Technical Review Panel, Ramsar Convention on Wetlands Colin Galbraith, Chair, Scientific Council, Convention on Migratory Species Erika Harms, Program Officer for Biodiversity, United Nations Foundation Robert Hepworth, Executive Secretary, Convention on Migratory Species Olav Kjørven, Director, Energy and Environment Group,United Nations Development Programme Kerstin Leitner, Assistant Director-General, Sustainable Development and Healthy Environments, World Health Organization Alfred Oteng-Yeboah, Chair, Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, Convention on Biological Diversity Christian Prip, Chair, Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, Convention on Biological Diversity Mario Ramos, Biodiversity Program Manager, Global Environment Facility Thomas Rosswall, Director, International Council for Science Achim Steiner, Director General, IUCN–The World Conservation Union Halldor Thorgeirsson, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Klaus Töpfer, Executive Director, United Nations Environment Programme Jeff Tschirley, Chief, Environmental Service, Research, and Training Division, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations Ricardo Valentini, Chair, Committee on Science and Technology, United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification Hamdallah Zedan, Executive Secretary, Convention on Biological Diversity At-large Members Fernando Almeida, Executive President, Business Council for Sustainable Development – Brazil Phoebe Barnard, Global Invasive Species Programme, South Africa Gordana Beltram, Counsellor to the Minister, Ministry of Environment, Slovenia Delmar Blasco, Former Secretary General, Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, Spain Antony Burgmans, Chairman, Unilever N.V., The Netherlands Esther Camac, Asociación Ixä Ca Vấ de Desarrollo e Información Indigena, Costa Rica Angela Cropper (ex officio), The Cropper Foundation, Trinidad & Tobago Partha Dasgupta, Faculty of Economics and Politics, University of Cambridge, U.K José Maria Figueres, Fundación Costa Rica para el Desarrollo Sostenible, Costa Rica Fred Fortier, Indigenous Peoples' Biodiversity Information Network, Canada Mohamed H.A Hassan, Executive Director, Third World Academy of Sciences, Italy Jonathan Lash, President, World Resources Institute, United States Wangari Maathai, Vice Minister for Environment, Kenya Paul Maro, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Harold Mooney (ex officio), Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, United States Marina Motovilova, Faculty of Geography, Laboratory of Moscow Region, Russia M.K Prasad, Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad, India Walter V Reid, Director, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Malaysia and United States Henry Schacht, Past Chairman of the Board, Lucent Technologies, United States Peter Johan Schei, Director General, The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Norway Ismail Serageldin, President, Bibliotheca Alexandrina, Egypt David Suzuki, Chair, David Suzuki Foundation, Canada M.S Swaminathan, Chairman, MS Swaminathan Research Foundation, India José Galízia Tundisi, President, International Institute of Ecology, Brazil Axel Wenblad, Vice President Environmental Affairs, Skanska AB, Sweden Xu Guanhua, Minister, Ministry of Science and Technology, China Muhammad Yunus, Managing Director, Grameen Bank, Bangladesh Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Secretariat Support Organizations The United Nations Environment Programme coordinates the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Secretariat, which is based at the following partner institutions: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Italy Institute of Economic Growth, India International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, Mexico (until 2004) Meridian Institute, United States National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Netherlands (until mid-2004) Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment, France UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre, United Kingdom University of Pretoria, South Africa University of Wisconsin, United States World Resources Institute, United States WorldFish Center, Malaysia Preface The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was carried out between 2001 and 2005 to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and to establish the scientific basis for actions needed to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems and their contributions to human well-being The MA responds to government requests for information received through four international conventions—the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and the Convention on Migratory Species— and is designed to also meet needs of other stakeholders, including the business community, the health sector, nongovernmental organizations, and indigenous peoples The sub-global assessments also aimed to meet needs of users in the regions where they were undertaken The assessment focuses on the linkages between ecosystems and human well-being and, in particular, on “ecosystem services.” An ecosystem is a dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and the nonliving environment interacting as a functional unit The MA deals with the full range of ecosystems—from those relatively undisturbed, such as natural forests, to landscapes with mixed patterns of human use, to ecosystems intensively managed and modified by humans, such as agricultural land and urban areas Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems These include provisioning services such as food, water, timber, and fiber; regulating services that affect climate, floods, disease, wastes, and water quality; cultural services that provide recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits; and supporting services such as soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling The human species, while buffered against environmental changes by culture and technology, is fundamentally dependent on the flow of ecosystem services The MA examines how changes in ecosystem services influence human wellbeing Human well-being is assumed to have multiple constituents, including the basic material for a good life, such as secure and adequate livelihoods, enough food at all times, shelter, clothing, and access to goods; health, including feeling well and having a healthy physical environment, such as clean air and access to clean water; good social relations, including social cohesion, mutual respect, and the ability to help others and provide for children; security, including secure access to natural and other resources, personal safety, and security from natural and human-made disasters; and freedom of choice and action, including the opportunity to achieve what an individual values doing and being Freedom of choice and action is influenced by other constituents of well-being (as well as by other factors, notably education) and is also a precondition for achieving other components of well-being, particularly with respect to equity and fairness The conceptual framework for the MA posits that people are integral parts of ecosystems and that a dynamic interaction exists between them and other parts of ecosystems, with the changing human condition driving, both directly and indirectly, changes in ecosystems and thereby causing changes in human well-being At the same time, social, economic, and cultural factors unrelated to ecosystems alter the human condition, and many natural forces influence ecosystems Although the MA emphasizes the linkages between ecosystems and human well-being, it recognizes that the actions people take that influence ecosystems result not just from concern about human well-being but also from considerations of the intrinsic value of species and ecosystems Intrinsic value is the value of something in and for itself, irrespective of its utility for someone else The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment synthesizes information from the scientific literature and relevant peer-reviewed datasets and models It incorporates knowledge held by the private sector, practitioners, local communities, and indigenous peoples The MA did not aim to generate new primary knowledge, but instead sought to add value to existing information by collating, evaluating, summarizing, interpreting, and communicating it in a useful form Assessments like this one apply the judgment of experts to existing knowledge to provide scientifically credible answers to policyrelevant questions The focus on policy-relevant questions and the explicit use of expert judgment distinguish this type of assessment from a scientific review Five overarching questions, along with more detailed lists of user needs developed through discussions with stakeholders or provided by governments through international conventions, guided the issues that were assessed: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ What are the current condition and trends of ecosystems, ecosystem services, and human well-being? What are plausible future changes in ecosystems and their ecosystem services and the consequent changes in human well-being? What can be done to enhance well-being and conserve ecosystems? What are the strengths and weaknesses of response options that can be considered to realize or avoid specific futures? What are the key uncertainties that hinder effective decision-making concerning ecosystems? What tools and methodologies developed and used in the MA can strengthen capacity to assess ecosystems, the services they provide, their impacts on human well-being, and the strengths and weaknesses of response options? The MA was conducted as a multiscale assessment, with interlinked assessments undertaken at local, watershed, national, regional, and global scales A global ecosystem assessment cannot easily meet all the needs of decision-makers at national and sub-national scales because the management of any particular ecosystem must be tailored to the particular characteristics of that ecosystem and to the demands placed on it However, an assessment focused only on a particular ecosystem or particular nation is insufficient because some processes are global and because local goods, services, matter, and energy are often transferred across regions Each of the component assessments was guided by the MA conceptual framework and benefited from the presence of assessments undertaken at larger and smaller scales The sub-global assessments were not intended to serve as representative samples of all ecosystems; rather, they were to meet the needs of decision-makers at the scales at which they were undertaken The work of the MA was conducted through four working groups, each of which prepared a report of its findings At the global scale, the Condition and Trends Working Group assessed the state of knowledge on ecosystems, drivers of ecosystem change, ecosystem services, and associated human well-being around the year 2000 The assessment aimed to be comprehensive with regard to ecosystem services, but its coverage is not exhaustive The Scenarios Working Group considered the possible evolution of ecosystem services during the twenty-first century by developing four global scenarios exploring plausible future changes in drivers, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and human well-being The Responses Working Group examined the strengths and weaknesses of various response options that have been used to manage ecosystem services and identified promising opportunities for improving human well-being while conserving ecosystems The report of the Sub-global Working Group contains a lesson learned from of the MA sub-global assessments The first product of the MA—Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment, published in 2003—outlined the focus, conceptual basis, and methods used in the MA Approximately 1,360 experts from 95 countries were involved as authors of the assessment reports, as participants in the sub-global assessments, or as members of the Board of Review Editors (See Appendix C for the list of coordinating lead authors, sub-global assessment coordinators, and review editors.) The latter group, which involved 80 experts, oversaw the scientific review of the MA reports by governments and experts and ensured that all review comments were appropriately addressed by the authors All MA findings underwent two rounds of expert and governmental review Review comments were received from approximately 850 individuals (of which roughly 250 were submitted by authors of other chapters in the MA), although in a number of cases (particularly in the case of governments and MAaffiliated scientific organizations), people submitted collated comments that had been prepared by a number of reviewers in their governments or institutions The MA was guided by a Board that included representatives of five international conventions, five U.N agencies, international scientific organizations, governments, and leaders from the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and indigenous groups A 15-member Assessment Panel of leading social and natural scientists oversaw the technical work of the assessment, supported by a secretariat with offices in Europe, North America, South America, Asia, and Africa and coordinated by the United Nations Environment Programme The MA is intended to be used: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ to identify priorities for action; as a benchmark for future assessments; as a framework and source of tools for assessment, planning, and management; to gain foresight concerning the consequences of decisions affecting ecosystems; to identify response options to achieve human development and sustainability goals; to help build individual and institutional capacity to undertake integrated ecosystem assessments and act on the findings; and to guide future research Because of the broad scope of the MA and the complexity of the interactions between social and natural systems, it proved to be difficult to provide definitive information for some of the issues addressed in the MA Relatively few ecosystem services have been the focus of research and monitoring and, as a consequence, research findings and data are often inadequate for a detailed global assessment Moreover, the data and information that are available are generally related to either the characteristics of the ecological system or the characteristics of the social system, not to the all-important interactions between these systems Finally, the scientific and assessment tools and models available to undertake a cross-scale integrated assessment and to project future changes in ecosystem services are only now being developed Despite these challenges, the MA was able to provide considerable information relevant to most of the focal questions And by identifying gaps in data and information that prevent policy-relevant questions from being answered, the assessment can help to guide research and monitoring that may allow those questions to be answered in future assessments Figure A Linkages between Ecosystem Services and Human Wellbeing This figure depicts the strength of linkages between categories of ecosystem services and components of human well-being that are commonly encountered, and includes indications of the extent to which it is possible for socioeconomic factors to mediate the linkage (For example, if it is possible to purchase a substitute for a degraded ecosystem service, then there is a high potential for mediation.) The strength of the linkages and the potential for mediation differ in different ecosystems and regions In addition to the influence of ecosystem services on human well-being depicted here, other factors—including other environmental factors as well as economic, social, technological, and cultural factors—influence human well-being, and ecosystems are in turn affected by changes in human well-being (See Figure B.) 10 Moreover, some of the impacts of ecosystem changes may be experienced only at some distance from where the change occurred For example, changes in upstream catchments affect water flow and water quality in downstream regions; similarly, the loss of an important fish nursery area in a coastal wetland may diminish fish catch some distance away Both the inertia in ecological systems and the temporal and spatial separation of costs and benefits of ecosystem changes often result in situations where the individuals experiencing harm from ecosystem changes (future generations, say, or downstream landowners) are not the same as the individuals gaining the benefits These temporal and spatial patterns make it extremely difficult to fully assess costs and benefits associated with ecosystem changes or to attribute costs and benefits to different stakeholders Moreover, the institutional arrangements now in place to manage ecosystems are poorly designed to cope with these challenges Increased Likelihood of Nonlinear (Stepped) and Potentially Abrupt Changes in Ecosystems There is established but incomplete evidence that changes being made in ecosystems are increasing the likelihood of nonlinear changes in ecosystems (including accelerating, abrupt, and potentially irreversible changes), with important consequences for human well-being [7] Changes in ecosystems generally take place gradually Some changes are nonlinear, however: once a threshold is crossed, the system changes to a very different state And these nonlinear changes are sometimes abrupt; they can also be large in magnitude and difficult, expensive, or impossible to reverse Capabilities for predicting some nonlinear changes are improving, but for most ecosystems and for most potential nonlinear changes, while science can often warn of increased risks of change it cannot predict the thresholds at which the change will be encountered Examples of large-magnitude nonlinear changes include: ▪ Disease emergence If, on average, each infected person infects at least one other person, than an epidemic spreads, while if the infection is transferred on average to less than one person the epidemic dies out During the 1997/98 El Niño, excessive flooding caused cholera epidemics in Djibouti, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Mozambique Warming of the African Great Lakes due to climate change may create conditions that increase the risk of cholera transmission in the surrounding countries (C14.2.1) ▪ Eutrophication and hypoxia Once a threshold of nutrient loading is achieved, changes in freshwater and coastal ecosystems can be abrupt and extensive, creating harmful algal blooms (including blooms of toxic species) and sometimes leading to the formation of oxygen-depleted zones, killing most animal life ▪ Fisheries collapse For example, the Atlantic cod stocks off the east coast of Newfoundland collapsed in 1992, forcing the closure of the fishery after hundreds of years of exploitation Most important, depleted stocks may take years to recover, or not recover at all, even if harvesting is significantly reduced or eliminated entirely ▪ Species introductions and losses The introduction of the zebra mussel into aquatic systems in the United States, for instance, resulted in the extirpation of native clams in Lake St Clair and annual costs of $100 million to the power industry and other users 20 ▪ Regional climate change Deforestation generally leads to decreased rainfall Since forest existence crucially depends on rainfall, the relationship between forest loss and precipitation decrease can form a positive feedback, which, under certain conditions, can lead to a nonlinear change in forest cover The growing bushmeat trade poses particularly significant threats associated with nonlinear changes, in this case accelerating rates of change [7] Growth in the use and trade of bushmeat is placing increasing pressure on many species, especially in Africa and Asia While the population size of harvested species may decline gradually with increasing harvest for some time, once harvest exceeds sustainable levels, the rate of decline of populations of the harvested species will tend to accelerate This could place them at risk of extinction and also reduce the food supply of people dependent on these resources in the longer term At the same time, the bushmeat trade involves relatively high levels of interaction between humans and some relatively closely related wild animals that are eaten Again, this increases the risk of a nonlinear change, in this case the emergence of new and serious pathogens Given the speed and magnitude of international travel today, new pathogens could spread rapidly around the world The increased likelihood of these non-linear changes stems from the loss of biodiversity and growing pressures from multiple direct drivers of ecosystem change [7] The loss of species and genetic diversity decreases the resilience of ecosystems, which is the level of disturbance that an ecosystem can undergo without crossing a threshold to a different structure or functioning In addition, growing pressures from drivers such as overharvesting, climate change, invasive species, and nutrient loading push ecosystems toward thresholds that they might otherwise not encounter Exacerbation of Poverty for Some Individuals and Groups of People and Contribution to Growing Inequities and Disparities across Groups of People Despite the progress achieved in increasing the production and use of some ecosystem services, levels of poverty remain high, inequities are growing, and many people still not have a sufficient supply of or access to ecosystem services [3] ▪ In 2001, just over billion people survived on less than $1 per day of income, with roughly 70% of them in rural areas where they are highly dependent on agriculture, grazing, and hunting for subsistence ▪ Inequality in income and other measures of human well-being has increased over the past decade A child born in sub-Saharan Africa is 20 times more likely to die before age than a child born in an industrial country, and this disparity is higher than it was a decade ago During the 1990s, 21 countries experienced declines in their rankings in the Human Development Index (an aggregate measure of economic well-being, health, and education); 14 of them were in sub-Saharan Africa ▪ Despite the growth in per capita food production in the past four decades, an estimated 852 million people were undernourished in 2000–02, up 37 million from the period 1997–99 South Asia and subSaharan Africa, the regions with the largest numbers of undernourished people, are also the regions where growth in per capita food production has been the slowest Most notably, per capita food production has declined in sub-Saharan Africa 21 ▪ Some 1.1 billion people still lack access to improved water supply, and more than 2.6 billion lack access to improved sanitation Water scarcity affects roughly 1–2 billion people worldwide Since 1960, ratio of water use to accessible supply has grown by 20% per decade The degradation of ecosystem services is harming many of the world’s poorest people and is sometimes the principal factor causing poverty [3, 6] ▪ Half the urban population in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean suffers from one or more diseases associated with inadequate water and sanitation Worldwide, approximately 1.7 million people die annually as a result of inadequate water, sanitation, and hygiene ▪ The declining state of capture fisheries is reducing an inexpensive source of protein in developing countries Per capita fish consumption in developing countries, excluding China, declined between 1985 and 1997 ▪ Desertification affects the livelihoods of millions of people, including a large portion of the poor in drylands (C22) The pattern of “winners” and “losers” associated with ecosystem changes—and in particular the impact of ecosystem changes on poor people, women, and indigenous peoples—has not been adequately taken into account in management decisions [3, 6] Changes in ecosystems typically yield benefits for some people and exact costs on others who may either lose access to resources or livelihoods or be affected by externalities associated with the change For several reasons, groups such as the poor, women, and indigenous communities have tended to be harmed by these changes ▪ Many changes in ecosystem management have involved the privatization of what were formerly common pool resources Individuals who depended on those resources (such as indigenous peoples, forestdependent communities, and other groups relatively marginalized from political and economic sources of power) have often lost rights to the resources ▪ Some of the people and places affected by changes in ecosystems and ecosystem services are highly vulnerable and poorly equipped to cope with the major changes in ecosystems that may occur Highly vulnerable groups include those whose needs for ecosystem services already exceed the supply, such as people lacking adequate clean water supplies, and people living in areas with declining per capita agricultural production ▪ Significant differences between the roles and rights of men and women in many societies lead to increased vulnerability of women to changes in ecosystem services ▪ The reliance of the rural poor on ecosystem services is rarely measured and thus typically overlooked in national statistics and poverty assessments, resulting in inappropriate strategies that not take into account the role of the environment in poverty reduction For example, a recent study that synthesized data from 17 countries found that 22% 22 of household income for rural communities in forested regions comes from sources typically not included in national statistics, such as harvesting wild food, fuelwood, fodder, medicinal plants, and timber These activities generated a much higher proportion of poorer families’ total income than that of wealthy families, and this income was of particular significance in periods of both predictable and unpredictable shortfalls in other livelihood sources Development prospects in dryland regions of developing countries are especially dependent on actions to avoid the degradation of ecosystems and slow or reverse degradation where it is occurring [3, 5] Dryland systems cover about 41% of Earth’s land surface and more than billion people inhabit them, greater than 90% of whom are in developing countries Dryland ecosystems (encompassing both rural and urban regions of drylands) experienced the highest population growth rate in the 1990s of any of the systems examined in the MA Although drylands are home to about one third of the human population, they have only 8% of the world’s renewable water supply Given the low and variable rainfall, high temperatures, low soil organic matter, and high costs of delivering services such as electricity or piped water and limited investment in infrastructure due to the low population density, people living in drylands face many challenges They also tend to have the lowest levels of human well-being, including the lowest per capita GDP and the highest infant mortality rates The combination of high variability in environmental conditions and relatively high levels of poverty leads to situations where people can be highly vulnerable to changes in ecosystems, although the presence of these conditions has led to the development of very resilient land management strategies Pressures on dryland ecosystems already exceed sustainable levels for some ecosystem services, such as soil formation and water supply, and are growing Per capita water availability is currently only two thirds of the level required for minimum levels of human well-being Approximately 10–20% of the world’s drylands are degraded (medium certainty) directly harming the people living in these areas and indirectly harming a larger population through biophysical impacts (dust storms, downstream flooding, greenhouse gas emissions, and regional climate change) and through socioeconomic impacts (human migration and deepening poverty sometimes contributing to conflict and instability) Despite these tremendous challenges, people living in drylands and their land management systems have a proven resilience and the capability of preventing land degradation, although this can be either undermined or enhanced by public policies and development strategies Finding #3: The degradation of ecosystem services could grow significantly worse during the first half of this century and is a barrier to achieving the Millennium Development Goals The MA developed four scenarios to explore plausible futures for ecosystems and human well-being (See Box 1.) The scenarios explored two global development paths, one in which the world becomes increasingly globalized and the other in which it becomes increasingly regionalized, as well as two different approaches to ecosystem management, one in which actions are reactive and most problems are addressed only after they become obvious and the other in which ecosystem management is proactive and policies deliberately seek to maintain ecosystem services for the long term Most of the direct drivers of change in ecosystems currently remain constant or are growing in intensity in most ecosystems In all four MA scenarios, the pressures on ecosystems are projected to continue to grow during the first half of this century [4, 5] 23 The most important direct drivers of change in ecosystems are habitat change (land use change and physical modification of rivers or water withdrawal from rivers), overexploitation, invasive alien species, pollution, and climate change These direct drivers are often synergistic For example, in some locations land use change can result in greater nutrient loading (if the land is converted to high-intensity agriculture), increased emissions of greenhouse gasses (if forest is cleared), and increased numbers of invasive species (due to the disturbed habitat) ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Habitat transformation, particularly from conversion to agriculture: Under the MA scenarios, a further 10–20% of grassland and forestland is projected to be converted between 2000 and 2050 (primarily to agriculture) The projected land conversion is concentrated in lowincome countries and dryland regions Forest cover is projected to continue to increase within industrial countries Overexploitation, especially overfishing: In some marine systems fish biomass targeted in fisheries (including that of both the target species and those caught incidentally) has been reduced by 90 to 99% from preindustrial fishing levels, and the fish being harvested are increasingly coming from the less valuable lower trophic levels as populations of higher trophic level species are depleted These pressures continue to grow in all the MA scenarios Invasive alien species: The spread of invasive alien species and disease organisms continues to increase because of both deliberate translocations and accidental introductions related to growing trade and travel, with significant harmful consequences to native species and many ecosystem services Pollution, particularly nutrient loading: Humans have already doubled the flow of reactive nitrogen on the continents, and some projections suggest that this may increase by roughly a further two thirds by 2050 Three out of four MA scenarios project that the global flux of nitrogen to coastal ecosystems will increase by a further 10–20% by 2030 (medium certainty), with almost all of this increase occurring in developing countries Excessive flows of nitrogen contribute to eutrophication of freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems and acidification of freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems (with implications the biodiversity in these ecosystems) To some degree, nitrogen also plays a role in creation of ground-level ozone (which leads to loss of agricultural and forest productivity), destruction of ozone in the stratosphere (which leads to depletion of the ozone layer and increased UV-B radiation on Earth causing increased incidence of skin cancer), and global warming The resulting health effects include the consequences of ozone pollution on asthma and respiratory function, increased allergies and asthma due to increased pollen production, risk of blue-baby syndrome, increased risk of cancer and other chronic diseases from nitrate in drinking water, and increased risk of a variety of pulmonary and cardiac diseases from production of fine particles in the atmosphere Anthropogenic Climate Change: Observed recent changes in climate, especially warmer regional temperatures, have already had significant impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, including causing changes in species distributions, population sizes, the timing of reproduction or migration events, and an increase in the frequency of pest and disease outbreaks Many coral reefs have undergone major, although often partially reversible, bleaching episodes when local sea surface 24 temperatures have increased during one month by 0.5 to o Celsius above the average of the hottest months By the end of the century, climate change and its impacts may be the dominant direct driver of biodiversity loss and changes in ecosystem services globally The scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change project a further increase in global mean surface temperature of 1.4o–5.8o Celsius by 2100, increased incidence of floods and droughts, and a rise in sea level of an additional 8–88 centimeters Harm to biodiversity will grow worldwide with increasing rates of change in climate and increasing absolute amounts of change In contrast, some ecosystem services in some regions may initially be enhanced by projected changes in climate (such as increases in temperature or precipitation), and thus these regions may experience net benefits at low levels of climate change As climate change becomes more severe, however, the harmful impacts on ecosystem services outweigh the benefits in most regions of the world The balance of scientific evidence suggests that there will be a significant net harmful impact on ecosystem services worldwide if global mean surface temperature increases more than o Celsius above preindustrial levels or at rates greater than 0.2 o Celsius per decade (medium certainty) Based on the IPCC, this would require greenhouse gas concentrations to be limited to less than 550 parts per million Carbon dioxide (medium certainty) Under all four MA scenarios, the projected changes in drivers result in significant growth in consumption of ecosystem services, continued loss of biodiversity, and further degradation of some ecosystem services [5] ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ During the next 50 years, demand for food crops is projected to grow by 70–85% under the MA scenarios, and demand for water by between 30% and 85% Water withdrawals in developing countries are projected to increase significantly under the scenarios, although these are projected to decline in industrial countries (medium certainty) Food security is not achieved under the MA scenarios by 2050, and child malnutrition is not eradicated (and is projected to increase in some regions in some MA scenarios) despite increasing food supply and more diversified diets (medium certainty) A deterioration of the services provided by freshwater resources (such as aquatic habitat, fish production, and water supply for households, industry, and agriculture) is found in the scenarios, particularly in those that are reactive to environmental problems (medium certainty) Habitat loss and other ecosystem changes are projected to lead to a decline in local diversity of native species in all four MA scenarios by 2050 (high certainty) Globally, the equilibrium number of plant species is projected to be reduced by roughly 10–15% as the result of habitat loss alone over the period of 1970 to 2050 in the MA scenarios (low certainty), and other factors such as overharvesting, invasive species, pollution, and climate change will further increase the rate of extinction The degradation of ecosystem services poses a significant barrier to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and to the MDG targets for 2015 [3] The eight Millennium Development Goals adopted by the United Nations in 2000 aim to improve human well-being by 25 reducing poverty, hunger, child and maternal mortality, by ensuring education for all, by controlling and managing diseases, by tackling gender disparity, by ensuring environmental sustainability, and by pursuing global partnerships Under each of the MDGs, countries have agreed to targets to be achieved by 2015 The regions facing the greatest challenges in achieving these targets coincide with regions facing the greatest problems of ecosystem degradation Although socioeconomic policy changes will play a primary role in achieving most of the MDGs, many of the targets (and goals) are unlikely to be achieved without significant improvement in management of ecosystems The role of ecosystem changes in exacerbating poverty (Goal 1, Target 1) for some groups of people has been described already, and the goal of environmental sustainability including access to safe drinking water (Goal 7, Targets 9, 10, and 11) cannot be achieved as long as most ecosystem services are being degraded Progress toward three other MDGs is particularly dependent on sound ecosystem management: ▪ Hunger (Goal 1, Target 2): All four MA scenarios project progress in the elimination of hunger but at rates far slower than needed to attain the internationally agreed target of halving, between 1990 and 2015, the share of people suffering from hunger Moreover, the improvements are slowest in the regions in which the problems are greatest: South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa Ecosystem condition, in particular climate, soil degradation and water availability, influences progress toward this goal through its influence on crop yields as well as through impacts on the availability of wild sources of food ▪ Child mortality (Goal 4) Undernutrition is the underlying cause of a substantial proportion of all child deaths Three of the MA scenarios project reductions in child undernourishment by 2050 of between 10 and 60% but undournorishment increases by 10% in Order from Strength (low certainty) Child mortality is also strongly influenced by diseases associated with water quality Diarrhea is one of the predominant causes of infant deaths worldwide In sub-Saharan Africa, malaria additionally plays an important part in child mortality in many countries of the region ▪ Disease (Goal 6): In the more promising MA scenarios, progress toward Goal is achieved, but under Order from Strength it is plausible that health and social conditions for the North and South could further diverge, exacerbating health problems in many low-income regions Changes in ecosystems influence the abundance of human pathogens such as malaria and cholera as well as the risk of emergence of new diseases Malaria is responsible for 11% of the disease burden in Africa, and it is estimated that Africa’s GDP could have been $100 billion larger in 2000 (roughly a 25% increase) if malaria had been eliminated 35 years ago The prevalence of the following infectious diseases is particularly strongly influenced by ecosystem change: malaria, schistosomiasis, lymphatic filariasis, Japanese encephalitis, dengue fever, leishmaniasis, Chagas disease, meningitis, cholera, West Nile virus, and Lyme disease Finding #4: The challenge of reversing the degradation of ecosystems while meeting increasing demands for their services can be partially met under some scenarios involving significant changes 26 in policies, institutions and practices, but these changes are large and not currently under way Many options exist to conserve or enhance specific ecosystem services in ways that reduce negative trade-offs or that provide positive synergies with other ecosystem services Three of the four MA scenarios show that significant changes in policies, institutions and practices can mitigate many of the negative consequences of growing pressures on ecosystems, although the changes required are large and not currently under way [5] All provisioning, regulating, and cultural ecosystem services are projected to be in worse condition in 2050 than they are today in only one of the four MA scenarios (Order from Strength) At least one of the three categories of services is in better condition in 2050 than in 2000 in the other three scenarios The scale of interventions that result in these positive outcomes are substantial and include significant investments in environmentally sound technology, active adaptive management, proactive action to address environmental problems before their full consequences are experienced, major investments in public goods (such as education and health), strong action to reduce socioeconomic disparities and eliminate poverty, and expanded capacity of people to manage ecosystems adaptively However, even in scenarios where one or more categories of ecosystem services are improved , biodiversity continues to be lost and thus the long-term sustainability of actions to mitigate degradation of ecosystem services is uncertain Past actions to slow or reverse the degradation of ecosystems have yielded significant benefits, but these improvements have generally not kept pace with growing pressures and demands [8] Although most ecosystem services assessed in the MA are being degraded, the extent of that degradation would have been much greater without responses implemented in past decades For example, more than 100,000 protected areas (including strictly protected areas such as national parks as well as areas managed for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems, including timber or wildlife harvest) covering about 11.7% of the terrestrial surface have now been established, and these play an important role in the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services (although important gaps in the distribution of protected areas remain, particularly in marine and freshwater systems) Technological advances have also helped lessen the increase in pressure on ecosystems caused per unit increase in demand for ecosystem services Substitutes can be developed for some but not all ecosystem services, but the cost of substitutes is generally high, and substitutes may also have other negative environmental consequences [8] For example, the substitution of vinyl, plastics, and metal for wood has contributed to relatively slow growth in global timber consumption in recent years But while the availability of substitutes can reduce pressure on specific ecosystem services, they may not always have positive net benefits on the environment Substitution of fuelwood by fossil fuels, for example, reduces pressure on forests and lowers indoor air pollution but it also increases net greenhouse gas emissions Substitutes are also often costlier to provide than the original ecosystem services Ecosystem degradation can rarely be reversed without actions that address the negative effects or enhance the positive effects of one or more of the five indirect drivers of change: population change (including growth and migration), change in economic activity (including economic growth, disparities in wealth, and trade 27 patterns), sociopolitical factors (including factors ranging from the presence of conflict to public participation in decision-making), cultural factors, and technological change [4] Collectively these factors influence the level of production and consumption of ecosystem services and the sustainability of the production Both economic growth and population growth lead to increased consumption of ecosystem services, although the harmful environmental impacts of any particular level of consumption depend on the efficiency of the technologies used to produce the service Too often, actions to slow ecosystem degradation not address these indirect drivers For example, forest management is influenced more strongly by actions outside the forest sector, such as trade policies and institutions, macroeconomic policies, and policies in other sectors such as agriculture, infrastructure, energy, and mining, than by those within it An effective set of responses to ensure the sustainable management of ecosystems must address the indirect and drivers just described and must overcome barriers related to [8]: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Inappropriate institutional and governance arrangements, including the presence of corruption and weak systems of regulation and accountability Market failures and the misalignment of economic incentives Social and behavioral factors, including the lack of political and economic power of some groups (such as poor people, women, and indigenous peoples) that are particularly dependent on ecosystem services or harmed by their degradation Underinvestment in the development and diffusion of technologies that could increase the efficiency of use of ecosystem services and could reduce the harmful impacts of various drivers of ecosystem change Insufficient knowledge (as well as the poor use of existing knowledge) concerning ecosystem services and management, policy, technological, behavioral, and institutional responses that could enhance benefits from these services while conserving resources All these barriers are further compounded by weak human and institutional capacity related to the assessment and management of ecosystem services, underinvestment in the regulation and management of their use, lack of public awareness, and lack of awareness among decision-makers of both the threats posed by the degradation of ecosystem services and the opportunities that more sustainable management of ecosystems could provide The MA assessed 74 response options for ecosystem services, integrated ecosystem management, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and climate change Many of these options hold significant promise for overcoming these barriers and conserving or sustainably enhancing the supply of ecosystem services Promising options for specific sectors are shown in Box 2, while cross-cutting responses addressing key obstacles are described in the remainder of this section [8] Institutions and Governance Changes in institutional and environmental governance frameworks are sometimes required to create the enabling conditions for effective management of ecosystems, while in other cases existing institutions could meet these needs but face significant barriers Many existing institutions at both the global and national level have the mandate to address the degradation of ecosystem services but face a variety of challenges in doing so related in part to the need for greater cooperation 28 across sectors and the need for coordinated responses at multiple scales However, since a number of the issues identified in this assessment are recent concerns and were not specifically taken into account in the design of today’s institutions, changes in existing institutions and the development of new institutions may sometimes be needed, particularly at the national scale In particular, existing national and global institutions are not well designed to deal with the management of common pool resources, a characteristic of many ecosystem services Issues of ownership and access to resources, rights to participation in decision-making, and regulation of particular types of resource use or discharge of wastes can strongly influence the sustainability of ecosystem management and are fundamental determinants of who wins and loses from changes in ecosystems Corruption, a major obstacle to effective management of ecosystems, also stems from weak systems of regulation and accountability Promising interventions include: ▪ Integration of ecosystem management goals within other sectors and within broader development planning frameworks The most important public policy decisions affecting ecosystems are often made by agencies and in policy arenas other than those charged with protecting ecosystems For example, the Poverty Reduction Strategies prepared by developing-country governments for the World Bank and other institutions strongly shape national development priorities, but in general these have not taken into account the importance of ecosystems to improving the basic human capabilities of the poorest ▪ Increased coordination among multilateral environmental agreements and between environmental agreements and other international economic and social institutions International agreements are indispensable for addressing ecosystem-related concerns that span national boundaries, but numerous obstacles weaken their current effectiveness Steps are now being taken to increase the coordination among these mechanisms, and this could help to broaden the focus of the array of instruments However, coordination is also needed between the multilateral environmental agreements and more politically powerful international institutions, such as economic and trade agreements, to ensure that they are not acting at cross-purposes And, implementation of these agreements also needs to be coordinated among relevant institutions and sectors at the national level ▪ Increased transparency and accountability of government and privatesector performance on decisions that have an impact on ecosystems, including through greater involvement of concerned stakeholders in decision-making Laws, policies, institutions, and markets that have been shaped through public participation in decision-making are more likely to be effective and perceived as just Stakeholder participation also contributes to the decision-making process because it allows a better understanding of impacts and vulnerability, the distribution of costs and benefits associated with trade-offs, and the identification of a broader range of response options that are available in a specific context And stakeholder involvement and transparency of decisionmaking can increase accountability and reduce corruption Economics and Incentives Economic and financial interventions provide powerful instruments to regulate the use of ecosystem goods and services Because many ecosystem services are not traded in markets, markets fail to provide 29 appropriate signals that might otherwise contribute to the efficient allocation and sustainable use of the services A wide range of opportunities exists to influence human behavior to address this challenge in the form of economic and financial instruments However, market mechanisms and most economic instruments can only work effectively if supporting institutions are in place, and thus there is a need to build institutional capacity to enable more widespread use of these mechanisms Promising interventions include: ▪ Elimination of subsidies that promote excessive use of ecosystem services (and, where possible, transfer of these subsidies to payments for non-marketed ecosystem services) Government subsidies paid to the agricultural sectors of OECD countries between 2001 and 2003 averaged over $324 billion annually, or one third the global value of agricultural products in 2000 And a significant proportion of this total involved production subsidies that led to greater food production in industrialized countries than the global market conditions warranted and promoted overuse of fertilizers and pesticides in those countries, and reduced the profitability of agriculture in developing countries Many countries outside the OECD also have inappropriate input and production subsidies, and inappropriate subsidies are common in other sectors such as water, fisheries, and forestry Although removal of perverse subsidies will produce net benefits, it will not be without costs Compensatory mechanisms may be needed for poor people who are adversely affected by the removal of subsidies, and removal of agricultural subsidies within the OECD would need to be accompanied by actions designed to minimize adverse impacts on ecosystem services in developing countries ▪ Greater use of economic instruments and market-based approaches in the management of ecosystem services These include: o Taxes or user fees for activities with “external” costs (trade-offs not accounted for in the market) Examples include taxes on excessive application of nutrients or ecotourism user fees Creation of markets, including through cap-and-trade systems One of the most rapidly growing markets related to ecosystem services is the carbon market Approximately 64 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent were exchanged through projects from January to May 2004, nearly as much as during all of 2003 The value of carbon trades in 2003 was approximately $300 million About one quarter of the trades involved investment in ecosystem services (hydropower or biomass) It is speculated that this market may grow to some $44 billion by 2010 The creation of a market in the form of a nutrient trading system may also be a low-cost way to reduce excessive nutrient loading in the United States o Payment for ecosystem services For example, in 1996 Costa Rica established a nationwide system of conservation payments to induce landowners to provide ecosystem services Under this program, Costa Rica brokers contracts between international and domestic “buyers” and local “sellers” of sequestered carbon, biodiversity, watershed services, and scenic beauty Another innovative conservation financing mechanism is “biodiversity offsets,” whereby developers pay for conservation activities as compensation for unavoidable harm that a project causes to biodiversity o 30 o Mechanisms to enable consumer preferences to be expressed through markets For example, current certification schemes for sustainable fisheries and forest practices provide people with the opportunity to promote sustainability through their consumer choices Social and Behavioral Responses Social and behavioral responses—including population policy, public education, civil society actions, and empowerment of communities, women, and youth—can be instrumental in responding to the problem of ecosystem degradation These are generally interventions that stakeholders initiate and execute through exercising their procedural or democratic rights in efforts to improve ecosystems and human well-being Promising interventions include: ▪ Measures to reduce aggregate consumption of unsustainably managed ecosystem services The choices about what individuals consume and how much are influenced not just by considerations of price but also by behavioral factors related to culture, ethics, and values Behavioral changes that could reduce demand for degraded ecosystem services can be encouraged through actions by governments (such as education and public awareness programs or the promotion of demand-side management), industry (commitments to use raw materials that are from sources certified as being sustainable, for example, or improved product labeling), and civil society (through raising public awareness) Efforts to reduce aggregate consumption, however, must sometimes incorporate measures to increase the access to and consumption of those same ecosystem services by specific groups such as poor people ▪ Communication and education Improved communication and education are essential to achieve the objectives of environmental conventions and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation as well as the sustainable management of natural resources more generally Both the public and decision-makers can benefit from education concerning ecosystems and human well-being, but education more generally provides tremendous social benefits that can help address many drivers of ecosystem degradation While the importance of communication and education is well recognized, providing the human and financial resources to undertake effective work is a continuing problem ▪ Empowerment of groups particularly dependent on ecosystem services or affected by their degradation, including women, indigenous peoples, and young people Despite women’s knowledge about the environment and the potential they possess, their participation in decision-making has often been restricted by economic, social, and cultural structures Young people are also key stakeholders in that they will experience the longer-term consequences of decisions made today concerning ecosystem services Indigenous control of traditional homelands is often presented as having environmental benefits by indigenous peoples and their supporters, although the primary justification continues to be based on human and cultural rights Technological Responses Given the growing demands for ecosystem services and other increased pressures on ecosystems, the development and diffusion 31 of technologies designed to increase the efficiency of resource use or reduce the impacts of drivers such as climate change and nutrient loading are essential Technological change has been essential for meeting growing demands for some ecosystem services, and technology holds considerable promise to help meet future growth in demand Technologies already exist for reduction of nutrient pollution at reasonable costs including technologies for reduction of point source emissions, changes in crop management practices, and precision farming techniques to help control the application of fertilizers to a field, for example, but new policies are needed for these tools to be applied on a sufficient scale to slow and ultimately reverse the increase in nutrient loading (even while increasing nutrient application in relatively poor regions such as sub-Saharan Africa) However, negative impacts on ecosystems and human well-being have sometimes resulted from new technologies, and thus careful assessment is needed prior to their introduction Promising interventions include: ▪ Promotion of technologies that enable increased crop yields without harmful impacts related to water, nutrient, and pesticide use Agricultural expansion will continue to be one of the major drivers of biodiversity loss well into the twenty-first century Development, assessment, and diffusion of technologies that could increase the production of food per unit area sustainably without harmful trade-offs related to excessive consumption of water or use of nutrients or pesticides would significantly lessen pressure on other ecosystem services ▪ Restoration of ecosystem services Ecosystem restoration activities are now common in many countries Ecosystems with some features of the ones that were present before conversion can often be established and can provide some of the original ecosystem services However, the cost of restoration is generally extremely high compared with the cost of preventing the degradation of the ecosystem Not all services can be restored and those that are heavily degraded may require considerable time for restoration ▪ Promotion of technologies to increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions Significant reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions are technically feasible due to an extensive array of technologies in the energy supply, energy demand, and waste management sectors Reducing the projected emissions of greenhouse gas emissions will require a portfolio of energy production technologies ranging from fuel switching (coal/oil to gas) and increased power plant efficiency to increased use of renewable energy technologies, complemented by more efficient use of energy in the transportation, buildings, and industry sectors It will also involve the development and implementation of supporting institutions and policies to overcome barriers to the diffusion of these technologies into the marketplace, increased public and private sector funding for research and development, and effective technology transfer Knowledge Responses Effective management of ecosystems is constrained both by the lack of knowledge and information about different aspects of ecosystems and by the failure to use adequately the information that does exist in support of management decisions [8, 9] In most regions, for example, relatively limited information exists about the status and economic value of 32 most ecosystem services, and their depletion is rarely tracked in national economic accounts Basic global data on the extent and trend in different types of ecosystems and land use are surprisingly scarce Models used to project future environmental and economic conditions have limited capability of incorporating ecological “feedbacks,” including non-linear changes in ecosystems, as well as behavioral feedbacks such as learning that may take place through adaptive management of ecosystems At the same time, decision-makers not use all of the relevant information that is available This is due in part to institutional failures that prevent existing policy-relevant scientific information from being made available to decision-makers and in part to the failure to incorporate other forms of knowledge and information (such as traditional knowledge and practitioners’ knowledge) that are often of considerable value for ecosystem management Promising interventions include: ▪ Incorporation of nonmarket values of ecosystems in resource management and investment decisions Most resource management and investment decisions are strongly influenced by considerations of the monetary costs and benefits of alternative policy choices Decisions can be improved if they are informed by the total economic value of alternative management options and involve deliberative mechanisms that bring to bear noneconomic considerations as well ▪ Use of all relevant forms of knowledge and information in assessments and decision-making, including traditional and practitioners' knowledge Effective management of ecosystems typically requires “place-based” knowledge—that is, information about the specific characteristics and history of an ecosystem Traditional knowledge or practitioners' knowledge held by local resource managers can often be of considerable value in resource management, but it is too rarely incorporated into decision-making processes and indeed is often inappropriately dismissed ▪ Enhancing and sustaining human and institutional capacity for assessing the consequences of ecosystem change for human wellbeing and acting on such assessments Greater technical capacity is needed for agriculture, forest, and fisheries management But the capacity that exists for these sectors, as limited as it is in many countries, is still vastly greater than the capacity for effective management of other ecosystem services A variety of frameworks and methods can be used to make better decisions in the face of uncertainties in data, prediction, context, and scale Active adaptive management can be a particularly valuable tool for reducing uncertainty about ecosystem management decisions [8] Commonly used decision-support methods include costbenefit analysis, risk assessment, multicriteria analysis, the precautionary principle, and vulnerability analysis Scenarios also provide one means to cope with many aspects of uncertainty, but our limited understanding of ecological and human response process shrouds any individual scenario in its own characteristic uncertainty Active adaptive management is a tool that can be particularly valuable given the high levels of uncertainty surrounding coupled socioecological systems This involves the design of management programs to test hypotheses about how components of an ecosystem function and interact, thereby reducing uncertainty about the system more rapidly than would otherwise occur 33 Sufficient information exists concerning the drivers of change in ecosystems, consequences of changes in ecosystem services for human well-being, and the merits of various response options, to enhance decision-making in support of sustainable development at all scales However, many research needs and information gaps were identified in this assessment, and actions to address those needs could yield substantial benefits in the form of improved information for policy and action [9] This assessment was unable to fully answer a number of questions posed by it users, due to gaps in data and knowledge Some of these gaps resulted from weaknesses in monitoring systems related to ecosystem services and their linkages with human wellbeing In other cases, the assessment revealed significant needs for further research such the need to improve understanding of nonlinear changes in ecosystems, and improve understanding of the economic value of alternative management options Investments in improved monitoring and research, combined with additional assessments of ecosystem services in different nations and regions, would significantly enhance the utility of any future global assessment of the consequences of ecosystem change for human wellbeing 34 ... Mestor Associates Ltd., Canada MA Director Walter V Reid, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Malaysia and United States Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board The MA Board represents the users of the... Grameen Bank, Bangladesh Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Secretariat Support Organizations The United Nations Environment Programme coordinates the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Secretariat,... and ecosystems are in turn affected by changes in human well-being (See Figure B.) 10 Figure B Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Conceptual Framework of Interactions between Biodiversity, Ecosystem